My work has been copied: how to document it and the available avenues

Verified as of 28 September 2026. If anything has changed, let me know and I will update it with the date of the change.

Discovering your work reproduced without permission provokes an understandable reaction: to make it public immediately. Before doing so, it is advisable to preserve what is online, verify which rights are at stake, and decide which course of action best addresses the case.

This guide outlines those steps. It does not constitute legal advice. If significant income, a campaign, products, repeated infringement, uncertain identity of the responsible party, or a risk of evidence disappearing are involved, consult a professional before making contact.

First, preserve what you can

A webpage may change or disappear. Before notifying the party who published the content:

• save the exact URL of each page;
• take full screenshots with account details, visible date, and context;
• download accessible files without altering their metadata;
• preserve advertisements, prices, sales figures, comments, and related profiles;
• save search results and links that allow the dissemination to be reconstructed;
• note the date, time, device, and steps followed;
• archive subsequent communications.

The Wayback Machine allows you to request a capture and obtain a permanent URL, although it does not correctly preserve all pages or dynamic elements. An archived copy is a piece of documentation, not an automatic guarantee of its evidentiary value.

If the matter may lead to proceedings, a notarial record (acta notarial) can document what the notary observes and the checks performed. It does not, by itself, prove authorship, infringement or who controls an account. Ask beforehand what should be examined so that the record addresses the actual problem.

Gather documentation of your work

Keep:

• original or master file;
• sketches and versions;
• metadata and checksums where applicable;
• photographs of the process;
• first publication or exhibition;
• invoice, certificate, deposit, or contract;
• dated correspondence;
• master artwork record and provenance documentation.

The guide How to document the provenance of your own work explains how to maintain such a file. No isolated element necessarily demonstrates the entire creative process, but the collection can establish a coherent chronology.

Verify what has been used

Not every similarity constitutes an infringement. Copyright protects the original expression of a work, not an idea, a theme, a technique, or a style in the abstract.

Compare:

• composition;
• recognisable forms;
• selection and arrangement of elements;
• singular details;
• proportions and relationships;
• reproduced fragments;
• transformation performed;
• purpose and context of the use.

Avoid deciding solely through a quick visual comparison. In doubtful cases, a specialised assessment may be necessary.

Review limitations and ownership

The law permits some uses without authorisation. In Spain, the quotation exception in article 32 requires, among other conditions, a work already disclosed, a teaching or research purpose, a justified extent and an indication of source and author. Not every social media post, cultural commentary or decorative use is a lawful quotation.

The parody of a disclosed work does not require consent when it does not create a risk of confusion or cause harm to the original work or its author. That someone labels a use a "parody" does not resolve whether it meets those conditions.

Also verify who is entitled to claim. If you assigned exclusive rights, entrusted their management, or if the copy affects someone else's photograph of your work, several rights holders may be involved.

Choose the initial contact

Not all cases begin in the same way. A message may resolve an isolated publication made out of ignorance. In cases of commercial exploitation, an anonymous account, or a case with fragile evidence, notifying before documenting may be detrimental to your position.

If you make contact, identify:

1. the work;
2. the questioned content;
3. the rights you claim to control;
4. what you are requesting: removal, credit, information, or a licensing proposal;
5. a reasonable deadline;
6. a channel for response.

Do not present a fee or a criminal accusation as an automatic threat. Keep the message and the response.

Platform forms

Networks, marketplaces, and hosting services usually offer intellectual property forms. Use the official channel, provide only the necessary information, and retain the receipt, case number, and response.

A private notification does not, by itself, determine the liability of a hosting service provider. Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act, provides that the provider is not liable for information stored at the request of a user if it does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or illegal content and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or illegal content is apparent. Upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, it must act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the content.

Article 16 of the Information Society Services Act retains in Spain a rule on hosting service providers and actual knowledge, and also provides for voluntary takedown procedures and other means that may be established. Applying both instruments together to a specific case may require legal advice. In any event, use the platform's official channel, provide enough information to identify the work and the content concerned, and keep the receipt, the case number and the response.

Removal by a platform does not definitively decide ownership or the existence of an infringement. Likewise, a platform rejecting a report does not preclude other avenues.

Management entity

If an entity manages the affected rights, review your contract and notify them of the use. VEGAP represents visual authors and offers management and licensing for works in its repertoire. Its intervention depends on the mandate and the specific right.

Administrative route on the internet

The Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission processes a procedure to restore legality regarding intellectual property infringements committed through information society services. It may adopt, within the legal and regulatory framework, measures aimed at the removal of content or the interruption of the service.

This should not be described as a general substitute for any civil claim nor as the standard form for every isolated copy. Before submitting an application, check its scope, requirements and current documentation on the Ministry of Culture's electronic office.

Civil proceedings

The Intellectual Property Act allows the rights holder to request the cessation of illicit activity and compensation for material and moral damages. They may also request the publication or dissemination of the judicial or arbitral resolution at the infringer's expense.

Liability may extend to those who knowingly induce the conduct, cooperate with knowledge or reasonable grounds to know of it, or, having a direct economic interest and capacity for control, benefit from the result, without prejudice to the legal limitations of liability for intermediaries.

The injured party may choose between:

• the negative economic consequences, including loss of profits and the profits obtained by the infringer; or
• the remuneration that would have been received had the infringer requested authorisation.

Moral damage may be compensated even if no economic loss is proven. It is assessed according to the circumstances, the seriousness of the infringement and the extent of the unlawful dissemination. The action to claim these damages is time-barred five years after the entitled party could have brought it.

In urgent cases, the interim measures provided for by law may be requested, even before the claim is filed when the requirements are met.

Criminal proceedings

Not every civil infringement is a criminal offence. Article 270 of the Criminal Code requires, in its basic form, unauthorised economic exploitation, the intention to obtain a direct or indirect economic benefit and prejudice to a third party. The criminal route requires assessing the facts, the evidence and whether the conduct fits the offence; it should not be invoked automatically for any reproduction without permission.

Three errors

• Accusing before documenting. This may facilitate the disappearance of content and generate an additional conflict if the facts are not clear.
• Paying unknown intermediaries. Do not pay anyone who promises to withdraw a complaint or recover an account without explaining their identity and procedure.
• Letting time pass. Evidence changes and actions have deadlines. Urgency, however, does not justify submitting an incomplete or false claim.

To make it easier next time

Maintain dates, originals, versions and documents for each work. Publish copies suitable for the web without providing layers, private metadata or master files. Keep a record of publications and leave a contact method visible.

A low-resolution version or a reservation of rights does not prevent copying, but it can reduce the information provided and facilitate subsequent management. The guide How to reserve your rights against data mining explains this reservation, which does not replace authorship documentation or a specific claim.

Action list

1. Do not contact yet.
2. Save URLs, screenshots, files and context.
3. Archive the page if possible.
4. Gather the file for your work.
5. Check ownership, assignments and legal limits.
6. Assess scope, purpose and responsible party.
7. Choose contact, platform, management entity, administrative route or legal advice.
8. Keep all communications.
9. Monitor deadlines.
10. Update the work file with what has occurred.

On the open conversation

This guide organises general pathways based on Spanish legislation and available official procedures. It does not decide whether a specific case is an infringement or which strategy to follow.

If you work in intellectual property or have been involved in a claim and detect an omission or a relevant change, this guide remains open.

Sources

• Consolidated text of the Intellectual Property Act, articles 32, 39, 138 to 141 and 195.
• Act 34/2002, on information society services, article 16.
• Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act, Article 6.
• Criminal Code, articles 270 et seq.
• Ministry of Culture, Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission.
• Ministry of Culture electronic office, internet safeguard procedure.
• Internet Archive, Save Pages in the Wayback Machine.
• VEGAP.